The OWS Movement will get some organization and actually accomplish things when they cave and bring in Tea Party people to operate things and do the work.

You know, people who show up to work on time and can do all that boring stuff like filing out forms and sending out newsletters and organizing campaigns.

But yeah, keep banging the drums and saying empty phrases like "its time to get crony capitalism out of politics". Lines that may be right and true, but do nothing to solve anything. Kinda like saying "Death is bad" and expecting that to stop the fact that death happens.

They have the Unions who are increasingly supporting their movement. The unions know how to organize, fill out forms, show up to work on time, are middle class and blue collar, etc. etc. and more sympathetic in many ways than the tea party. A hard hat resonates much more with Americans than a tricorner one, especially given that unions used to give so many people, including people who didn't go to college, a middle class life style. I'll be curious to see how far this partnership goes.

The OWS Movement will get some organization and actually accomplish things when they cave and bring in Tea Party people to operate things and do the work.

You know, people who show up to work on time and can do all that boring stuff like filing out forms and sending out newsletters and organizing campaigns.

But yeah, keep banging the drums and saying empty phrases like "its time to get crony capitalism out of politics". Lines that may be right and true, but do nothing to solve anything. Kinda like saying "Death is bad" and expecting that to stop the fact that death happens.

They have the Unions who are increasingly supporting their movement. The unions know how to organize, fill out forms, show up to work on time, are middle class and blue collar, etc. etc. and more sympathetic in many ways than the tea party. A hard hat resonates much more with Americans than a tricorner one, especially given that unions used to give so many people, including people who didn't go to college, a middle class life style. I'll be curious to see how far this partnership goes.

I read an article somewhere or other that said the revolts in Cairo, Santiago (Chile), Madrid, and New York are all linked by a protest at the unfairness of the economic model adopted back in the 80's. It rang true to me. This seems to me to be the critique of the current capitalist system that I mentioned last week or so on some thread or other.

Capitalism has one or two nice things about it, but it is a disgusting system overall and young people are finally rising up to protest the failures of the system, as they should.

For the last 30 years we have all been governed by the ideas from Chicago-on-the-Danube. Where will the alternative come from? Lima? Bangkok? Idaho? It will be interesting to see.

I read an article somewhere or other that said the revolts in Cairo, Santiago (Chile), Madrid, and New York are all linked by a protest at the unfairness of the economic model adopted back in the 80's. It rang true to me. This seems to me to be the critique of the current capitalist system that I mentioned last week or so on some thread or other.

Capitalism has one or two nice things about it, but it is a disgusting system overall and young people are finally rising up to protest the failures of the system, as they should.

For the last 30 years we have all been governed by the ideas from Chicago-on-the-Danube. Where will the alternative come from? Lima? Bangkok? Idaho? It will be interesting to see.

Well, the 80s began the internationalization of finance. Salomon Brothers created the mortgage-backed security in 1979, but it wasn't popularized until really the late 90s. Computers democratized finance . . . supposedly. But we can see the oligarchs rigged the game.

Railing against capitalism seems like an assault against the last 300 years, not the last 30. There were some periods within the last 300 years that were very good. And the alternatives to capitalism are all awful.

That may be. What I remember, and what it seems most remember is that starting around 30 years ago the government began to favor shifting the wealth to the top under the guise of 'trickle down economics' and that was just about the same time that unions were busted and middle class incomes stalled. There are other factors, but those are the ones I focus on. As you say, 'oligarchs rigged the game'. Oligarchs are of course just capitalists with a fancier name.

I know of no one, except maybe Bernie Sanders and I haven't even heard him do it, that is arguing for an alternative to capitalism. What I am hearing is that people want SOMEONE to start: first, admitting that capitalism has flaws, and then second, proposing solutions to those flaws.

As long as the conversation is dominated by fundamentalist capitalism-is-sacred-doctrine-and-must-not-be-questioned (which conservatives are doing), nothing can be fixed. For the capitalist crowd, caught up in the Soviet vs the West debate of 30+ years ago, nothing has changed. No one I know of is calling for the dictatorship of the proletariate. It seems very much like conservatives desperately miss the good old days of the communist black and white, good vs evil challenge and have not, and do not wish to, adjust to the new world.

We're not going to be able to fix (and 'fix' is an ideal) the situation until the cherry-picking Wealth of Nations-thumpers get over their panic and look at the world in front of them--the world their excesses have created. A lot of people are realizing that they do not think growing up to be the indentured servants of those born to wealthier families is really what life should be about.

That may be. What I remember, and what it seems most remember is that starting around 30 years ago the government began to favor shifting the wealth to the top under the guise of 'trickle down economics' and that was just about the same time that unions were busted and middle class incomes stalled. There are other factors, but those are the ones I focus on. As you say, 'oligarchs rigged the game'. Oligarchs are of course just capitalists with a fancier name.

I know of no one, except maybe Bernie Sanders and I haven't even heard him do it, that is arguing for an alternative to capitalism. What I am hearing is that people want SOMEONE to start: first, admitting that capitalism has flaws, and then second, proposing solutions to those flaws.

As long as the conversation is dominated by fundamentalist capitalism-is-sacred-doctrine-and-must-not-be-questioned (which conservatives are doing), nothing can be fixed. For the capitalist crowd, caught up in the Soviet vs the West debate of 30+ years ago, nothing has changed. No one I know of is calling for the dictatorship of the proletariate. It seems very much like conservatives desperately miss the good old days of the communist black and white, good vs evil challenge and have not, and do not wish to, adjust to the new world.

We're not going to be able to fix (and 'fix' is an ideal) the situation until the cherry-picking Wealth of Nations-thumpers get over their panic and look at the world in front of them--the world their excesses have created. A lot of people are realizing that they do not think growing up to be the indentured servants of those born to wealthier families is really what life should be about.

What a simplistic formulation. It is not "capitalism" that's the problem. Socializing risk while privatizing profit is not capitalism. It is its perversion into its current form of crony capitalism that has been so destructive. If a return to truly free market capitalism were made feasible, the 99% would benefit.

That may be. What I remember, and what it seems most remember is that starting around 30 years ago the government began to favor shifting the wealth to the top under the guise of 'trickle down economics' and that was just about the same time that unions were busted and middle class incomes stalled. There are other factors, but those are the ones I focus on. As you say, 'oligarchs rigged the game'. Oligarchs are of course just capitalists with a fancier name.

I know of no one, except maybe Bernie Sanders and I haven't even heard him do it, that is arguing for an alternative to capitalism. What I am hearing is that people want SOMEONE to start: first, admitting that capitalism has flaws, and then second, proposing solutions to those flaws.

As long as the conversation is dominated by fundamentalist capitalism-is-sacred-doctrine-and-must-not-be-questioned (which conservatives are doing), nothing can be fixed. For the capitalist crowd, caught up in the Soviet vs the West debate of 30+ years ago, nothing has changed. No one I know of is calling for the dictatorship of the proletariate. It seems very much like conservatives desperately miss the good old days of the communist black and white, good vs evil challenge and have not, and do not wish to, adjust to the new world.

We're not going to be able to fix (and 'fix' is an ideal) the situation until the cherry-picking Wealth of Nations-thumpers get over their panic and look at the world in front of them--the world their excesses have created. A lot of people are realizing that they do not think growing up to be the indentured servants of those born to wealthier families is really what life should be about.

What a simplistic formulation. It is not "capitalism" that's the problem. Socializing risk while privatizing profit is not capitalism. It is its perversion into its current form of crony capitalism that has been so destructive. If a return to truly free market capitalism were made feasible, the 99% would benefit.

Well, Ya-Ta is going to say that's what essentially capitalism really means. And the arguments go on, as each of you fritter away the massive common ground and anti-status quo sentiment that you share.

I read an article somewhere or other that said the revolts in Cairo, Santiago (Chile), Madrid, and New York are all linked by a protest at the unfairness of the economic model adopted back in the 80's. It rang true to me. This seems to me to be the critique of the current capitalist system that I mentioned last week or so on some thread or other.

Capitalism has one or two nice things about it, but it is a disgusting system overall and young people are finally rising up to protest the failures of the system, as they should.

For the last 30 years we have all been governed by the ideas from Chicago-on-the-Danube. Where will the alternative come from? Lima? Bangkok? Idaho? It will be interesting to see.

Well, the 80s began the internationalization of finance. Salomon Brothers created the mortgage-backed security in 1979, but it wasn't popularized until really the late 90s. Computers democratized finance . . . .

Not to nitpick, but mortgage-backed securities inititally blew up in the 80s, not the 90s (I recommend Liar's Poker by Michael Lewis). Due in part to that popularity, Wall St. and certain mortgage companies pushed for reduced standards and started pushing more questionable mortgages later on. What's amazing is in the late 90s there was a subprimse bubble that popped. Did anything change? Yeah, the bubble got bigger the 2nd time around!

Both Congress and the White House have been putting certain interests ahead of the rest of us for 2+ decades now. It's disgusting.

I read an article somewhere or other that said the revolts in Cairo, Santiago (Chile), Madrid, and New York are all linked by a protest at the unfairness of the economic model adopted back in the 80's. It rang true to me. This seems to me to be the critique of the current capitalist system that I mentioned last week or so on some thread or other.

Capitalism has one or two nice things about it, but it is a disgusting system overall and young people are finally rising up to protest the failures of the system, as they should.

For the last 30 years we have all been governed by the ideas from Chicago-on-the-Danube. Where will the alternative come from? Lima? Bangkok? Idaho? It will be interesting to see.

Well, the 80s began the internationalization of finance. Salomon Brothers created the mortgage-backed security in 1979, but it wasn't popularized until really the late 90s. Computers democratized finance . . . .

Not to nitpick, but mortgage-backed securities inititally blew up in the 80s, not the 90s (I recommend Liar's Poker by Michael Lewis). Due in part to that popularity, Wall St. and certain mortgage companies pushed for reduced standards and started pushing more questionable mortgages later on. What's amazing is in the late 90s there was a subprimse bubble that popped. Did anything change? Yeah, the bubble got bigger the 2nd time around!

Both Congress and the White House have been putting certain interests ahead of the rest of us for 2+ decades now. It's disgusting.

Yes, you're nitpicking, since most of the graphs I've seen tracking MBS issuances don't even start until the year 2000 (I'm actually reading the Big Short right now). But anyway, yes, MBS's were relevant and present in the market in the 80s.

I would also recommend reading "Too Big To Fail" by Andrew Sorkin and "All the Devils Are Here" by Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera. The former is pretty kind to the Wall St. bigshots but is still a good read about the financial crisis. The latter goes back to about 1980 and is a history of events that led to the financial crisis.

Sergio Ballesteros, 30, has been involved in Occupy LA since the movement had its California launch in October. But this week, his activism took an abrupt turn when he was arrested on a felony charge — lynching.
...
Whether the police allegation in this case will be pursued by by California’s courts is uncertain. But the felony charge — which carries a potential four-year prison sentence — is the kind of accusation that can change the landscape for would-be demonstrators.

"Felonies really heighten the stakes for the protesters," said Baher Azmy, legal director at Center for Constitutional Rights in New York. "I think in situations where there are mass demonstrations and a confrontation between protesters and police, one always has to be on the lookout for exaggerated interpretations of legal rules that attempt to punish or squelch the protesters."

In the handful of protest cases in which lynching has been used as a charge in the past, it later has been dropped. However, in one case, a court concluded that “lynching” could include “a person who takes part in a riot leading to his escape from custody."

The documents, released after long delay in the week between Christmas and New Year, show a nationwide meta-plot unfolding in city after city in an Orwellian world: six American universities are sites where campus police funneled information about students involved with OWS to the FBI, with the administrations' knowledge (p51); banks sat down with FBI officials to pool information about OWS protesters harvested by private security; plans to crush Occupy events, planned for a month down the road, were made by the FBI – and offered to the representatives of the same organizations that the protests would target; and even threats of the assassination of OWS leaders by sniper fire – by whom? Where? – now remain redacted and undisclosed to those American citizens in danger, contrary to standard FBI practice to inform the person concerned when there is a threat against a political leader (p61).

Hippies thought they'd go camping in New York and peacefully change the world (Hollywood tells them non-violent protest works...who are we to argue?). Banks and the government easily destroyed it.

The den of vipers and thieves that is the government-bankster usurious complex will easily roll over any mainstream liberal and/or left opposition.